资源分配：理想主义、现实主义、实用主义、开放性。
Resource allocation: idealism, realism, pragmatism, openness.
作者信息
Goodman N W
机构信息
University of Bristol.
出版信息
J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):179-80. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.179.
Abstract
Lewis and Charny have come under siege for suggesting remote questioning to decide appropriate medical care. While the criticisms are theoretically valid, the idea is so important practically that Lewis and Charny should be supported and their approach investigated as a way of making medical treatment at least more open and possibly more fair.
摘要
刘易斯和沙尔尼因提议采用远程问诊来决定合适的医疗护理而受到抨击。虽然这些批评在理论上是合理的，但这个想法在实际应用中非常重要，以至于应该支持刘易斯和沙尔尼，并对他们的方法进行研究，以此作为一种使医疗治疗至少更加公开、可能更加公平的方式。
相似文献
1
Resource allocation: idealism, realism, pragmatism, openness.资源分配：理想主义、现实主义、实用主义、开放性。
J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):179-80. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.179.
2
Priorities in health care: reply to Lewis and Charny.医疗保健的优先事项：对刘易斯和查尔尼的回应。
J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):33-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.33.
3
Resource allocation: whose realism?资源分配：谁的现实情况？
J Med Ethics. 1990 Sep;16(3):132-3. doi: 10.1136/jme.16.3.132.
4
The rationing of health care services: the case of Alameda County, California.
HEC Forum. 1990;2(3):145-55. doi: 10.1007/BF00057950.
5
Resource allocation--what is the first priority?资源分配——首要优先事项是什么？
J Med Ethics. 1992 Jun;18(2):99-100. doi: 10.1136/jme.18.2.99.
6
Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?确定优先事项：公民陪审团能发挥作用吗？
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1591-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1591.
7
Priorities and rationing: pragmatism or principles?优先事项与资源分配：实用主义还是原则？
BMJ. 1995 Sep 23;311(7008):761-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.761.
8
Setting priorities in the Spanish health care system.确定西班牙医疗保健系统的优先事项。
J Med Philos. 1995 Dec;20(6):595-606. doi: 10.1093/jmp/20.6.595.
9
The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group.英国国家医疗服务体系中的配给议程。配给议程小组。
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1593-601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1593.
10
Obligation to the least well off in setting mental health service priorities: a consensus statement.在确定心理健康服务优先事项时对最弱势群体的义务：一份共识声明。
Psychiatr Serv. 1998 Oct;49(10):1273-4, 1290. doi: 10.1176/ps.49.10.1273.
引用本文的文献
1
Good quality quality? Some methodological issues.高质量？一些方法学问题。
J R Soc Med. 1993 Aug;86(8):440-3.
2
Resource allocation--what is the first priority?资源分配——首要优先事项是什么？
J Med Ethics. 1992 Jun;18(2):99-100. doi: 10.1136/jme.18.2.99.
本文引用的文献
1
Priorities in health care: reply to Lewis and Charny.医疗保健的优先事项：对刘易斯和查尔尼的回应。
J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):33-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.33.
2
Terminating treatment: age as a standard.终止治疗：以年龄为标准。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1987 Oct-Nov;17(5):21-5.
3
Health care tickets for the uninsured. First class, coach, or standby?为未参保者提供的医疗保健票。头等舱、经济舱还是候补？
N Engl J Med. 1989 Nov 2;321(18):1261-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198911023211809.
4
The global distribution of health care resources.
J Med Ethics. 1990 Sep;16(3):153-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.16.3.153.
5
A plea for a touch of idealism: reply to P Whitaker.呼吁一点理想主义：对P·惠特克的回应
J Med Ethics. 1990 Sep;16(3):134-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.16.3.134.
6
Resource allocation: whose realism?资源分配：谁的现实情况？
J Med Ethics. 1990 Sep;16(3):132-3. doi: 10.1136/jme.16.3.132.
7
Resource allocation: a plea for a touch of realism.资源分配：呼吁些许现实态度。
J Med Ethics. 1990 Sep;16(3):129-31. doi: 10.1136/jme.16.3.129.
8
Priority setting: lessons from Oregon.优先事项设定：来自俄勒冈州的经验教训。
Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):891-4. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90213-9.
Zotero 插件